· 3/17/1915

In re Wegman Piano Co.

Citations

221 F. 128
1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1585

Syllabus

1. Payment @=17—Payment by Note—Necessity of Agreement. By the general rule, which prevails in New York, the giving of a note by a debtor to a creditor and the receipt of such note by the creditor will not pay or extinguish the original claim or debt, in the absence of an agreement that the note is to be received as payment. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig, §§ 70-77; Dec. Dig. @=17.] 2. Payment @=17—Payment by Note—Agreement Between Parties. When a note is given for the amount of a debt, it is competent for the parties to agree that the note shall constitute full payment and ex-tinguishment of the original debt. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig. §§ 70-77; Dee. Dig. @=17.] 3. Payment @=73—Presumptions and Burden of Proof—Payment by Note. An agreement that- a note for the amount of a debt shall constitute full payment of the debt must be established by clear and satisfactory evidence, as there is no presumption that the note is accepted or received as payment. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig. §§ 220, 222-225, 232-238; Dec. Dig. @=73.] 4. Sales @=477—Conditional Sales—Effect of Giving of Note. A purchaser of an adding machine on 30 days’ credit, by a contract which provided that title should remain in the seller until the purchase price, note, draft, or judgment therefor was paid in full, sent his note to the seller, which was retained by him. After the seller’s agent, who negotiated the sale, had become the owner of the rights of the seller in the contract and in the machine, he stated to an employe of the purchaser that he had received the note as payment, that he sold the machine on commission and was supposed to see that payment was made in cash, and, in reply to the employe’s statement that he was lucky to get the note, he further stated that the machine had to be paid for in cash, and that he was working on a commission, hut that he wou

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

criminalizing misrepresentations on an Internal Revenue Service form required to be executed at the moment a provider sells narcotics
upholding regulations that affected the revenue, even though their effect was “only remote and incidental” and “tend[ed] to promote public health and morals and doubtless that consideration influenced its enactment”
upholding a conviction under a criminal statute enacted as a revenue provision because Congress may make any reasonable rule or regulation “although its effect on the revenue be only remote or incidental”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ray

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.